Somebody should do an inquest into all dem ugly plastic looking tugs on display!

hahahaha when boots first come out with that material, everybody use to call it "imitation" "Chinee boots" "Shit Boots" etc. Then Nike bring it out with a little advertising and all of a sudden its the rage. Cheap material quadruple your profits.

Nah, is science. When the boots new and the ball new, then the shiny material has more grip on the ball (which is the opposite of what you think would happen)

Of course, if you playing with old equpment, then you might as well have on some imitation chinee boots.

Lots of people (and everyone on ESPN) are calling for video reviews of goal line decisions. I disagree. One of the few arguments where I would take FIFA's side. Why?

1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.

2. A chip in the ball, or a goal-line camera helps England equalize vs Germany. But what would you do for Tevez's offside goal? Put a chip in the players? Where do you draw the line at what can be reviewed? Is it only goals? What about if he was about to break free? What about if the whistle blow before the kick (like the USA "goal" vs Slovenia) Do you review fouls in the area too? Handballs? Diving? Do coaches get to call for a review? Is there a timeout? It's a slippery slope.

I think there is one area where FIFA can and should use reviews, and that is for diving. I think after every game, if you see a player holding his head and rolling around after he gets a tap on the shin, that you should give him a yellow retroactively. Since this will affect playing time in future games, I think it would go a long way to doing away with diving on the whole. It doesn't directly affect the game in progress, but provides a powerful incentive for players to stop the simulation.

Lots of people (and everyone on ESPN) are calling for video reviews of goal line decisions. I disagree. One of the few arguments where I would take FIFA's side. Why?

1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.

2. A chip in the ball, or a goal-line camera helps England equalize vs Germany. But what would you do for Tevez's offside goal? Put a chip in the players? Where do you draw the line at what can be reviewed? Is it only goals? What about if he was about to break free? What about if the whistle blow before the kick (like the USA "goal" vs Slovenia) Do you review fouls in the area too? Handballs? Diving? Do coaches get to call for a review? Is there a timeout? It's a slippery slope.

I think there is one area where FIFA can and should use reviews, and that is for diving. I think after every game, if you see a player holding his head and rolling around after he gets a tap on the shin, that you should give him a yellow retroactively. Since this will affect playing time in future games, I think it would go a long way to doing away with diving on the whole. It doesn't directly affect the game in progress, but provides a powerful incentive for players to stop the simulation.

Just my 2 cents

But yuh can't use video replays in Aranguez Savannah

No offense, dis not directed at you but at the argument... repeated by FIFA defenders.... point number 1 is a shit argument. Many people all over the world are unable to play the game with a clock... nor can they play with 4 officials, or on a regulation pitch. How dem does manage to play by the rules? How come people in Nettoville in Arima able to play basketball without video review? How come many colleges and high schools here in the US could play American football without review?

It is outright scandalous that FIFA can't institute goal line technology in big competitions, with so much invested (emotionally, financially) in the game.

1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.

Not true. Look how in de NCAA in de USA yuh could sub out and sub in de same player many times. Look how in friendlies yuh could have up to six substitutes. Look how in different tournaments yuh could have ah different setta rules concerning tiebreakers etc.

1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.

Not true. Look how in de NCAA in de USA yuh could sub out and sub in de same player many times. Look how in friendlies yuh could have up to six substitutes. Look how in different tournaments yuh could have ah different setta rules concerning tiebreakers etc.

What I meant to convey is not that you can't deviate from the rules - clearly that happens. But that you can play under the same rules as the world cup without needing additional equipment or adjustments. Once you start adding technology, then you will begin to see two different forms of the game develop.

1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.

Not true. Look how in de NCAA in de USA yuh could sub out and sub in de same player many times. Look how in friendlies yuh could have up to six substitutes. Look how in different tournaments yuh could have ah different setta rules concerning tiebreakers etc.

What I meant to convey is not that you can't deviate from the rules - clearly that happens. But that you can play under the same rules as the world cup without needing additional equipment or adjustments. Once you start adding technology, then you will begin to see two different forms of the game develop.

Can they play with with wireless earpieces in the officials' ears in Aranguez Savannah? How about an electronic substitution/additional time board? Why FIFA even using that when it not available for everybody? Why not bristol board and crayons on the sidelines and have the officials communicate to each other with hand signals?

I'm sorry... I just don't find that a very compelling argument. If people in the favelas an other parts of the developing world can adapt and deviate from the rules as played in the World Cup, then they can adapt and deviate from the use of technology as well.

1. Currently, if you playing a game in Aranjuez Savannah, you are playing with the same setup and rules as a game in Soccer City in SA. The game has uniform rules at all levels and the human element is part of it. Consistently controversial. I think a big part of the appeal of football is the simplicity of the game and that if you have a ball and players, then you good to go.

Not true. Look how in de NCAA in de USA yuh could sub out and sub in de same player many times. Look how in friendlies yuh could have up to six substitutes. Look how in different tournaments yuh could have ah different setta rules concerning tiebreakers etc.

What I meant to convey is not that you can't deviate from the rules - clearly that happens. But that you can play under the same rules as the world cup without needing additional equipment or adjustments. Once you start adding technology, then you will begin to see two different forms of the game develop.

Can they play with with wireless earpieces in the officials' ears in Aranguez Savannah? How about an electronic substitution/additional time board? Why FIFA even using that when it not available for everybody? Why not bristol board and crayons on the sidelines and have the officials communicate to each other with hand signals?

I'm sorry... I just don't find that a very compelling argument. If people in the favelas an other parts of the developing world can adapt and deviate from the rules as played in the World Cup, then they can adapt and deviate from the use of technology as well.

These items are peripheral to the game. Speeding or streamlining communication is not the same as making a change that directly impacts the play on the field. If the assistant ref see something he would get the ref attention and then the ref could always walk over and talk to the linesman or 4th official.

What we talking about is either putting a chip in the ball and a system in place to detect if it crosses the goal line and/or a video review system to review controversial goal-line plays. That is a different level of technological involvement than holding up a sign saying is 3 minutes of stoppage time.

Oho... so in other words we want the game played under the same rules in the favelas and Aranguez Savannah as in the World Cup... except when we decide is okay to not play under the same rules. To paraphrase George Orwell... all rules are created equal, but some rules are more equal than others.

Come nah man, If you could equate holding up a board with numbers on it to doing a video review of a controversial call then this conversation eh going nowhere. If you can tell me how being able to talk to the ref via wireless makes the officiating of the game different, or how knowing the (estimated) stoppage time changes the result I'll be glad to listen.

If the assistant ref sees a play that contradicts the call that the referee has made, then he/she would have to gain the attention of the referee and inform him regardless of the use of a headset. The existing technology as it is currently applied, does not affect play or directly influence the decisions of the referee. The technology merely serves to make the game more efficient and to provide more information to the viewers.

I'm not trying to equate them at all... I'm trying to illustrate for you how ridiculous the rationale is. FIFA doesn't have to make it mandatory... just mandatory for international competitions or matches sanctioned by FIFA confederations. It has nothing to do with the little guy kicking a ball in Aranguez savannah. Years ago when MLS was first formed they had their own shitty rules, with shootout and unlimited subs. Somehow FIFA didn't have a problem with that because the USSF played by FIFA rules.

As long as the Federations play by the rules that's all that's necessary, TTFF doh get involved in Eddie Hart business any more than it gets involved in Pro League business... which is to say none at all. So FIFA need to come again with that bullshit talk. Man taking a small goal sweat down by the ellipse in DC or in Prospect Park doh need goal line technology anymore than they need 4 officials... and there's no way you can tell me that the FIFA Confederations can't implement goal line technology evenly around the football world. So exactly what is the argument... tenuous as it may be?

If you read my original post, you can see clearly what I'm saying. With a subsequent clarification. My opinion on the matter was stated as well; that the application of technology directly affecting game play begins to separate the game as it is played at the highest levels from that at the lowest.

Right now, I can play a game in the savannah using the world cup rules. With the addition of chips, sensors, replays etc, then I cannot. It is my opinion that the ability to play a game anywhere using the same rules is part of what makes up the appeal of football.

Your response was to point out the uses of technology now. Uses that are applied on the periphery of the game. Now you are stating that your point is to illustrate that technology can be applied to games around the world. I never argued that such a thing was not possible.

Perhaps you can address what technology you would apply and under what conditions. This would make for a more productive exchange.

If you read my original post, you can see clearly what I'm saying. With a subsequent clarification. My opinion on the matter was stated as well; that the application of technology directly affecting game play begins to separate the game as it is played at the highest levels from that at the lowest.

Right now, I can play a game in the savannah using the world cup rules. With the addition of chips, sensors, replays etc, then I cannot. It is my opinion that the ability to play a game anywhere using the same rules is part of what makes up the appeal of football.

Your response was to point out the uses of technology now. Uses that are applied on the periphery of the game. Now you are stating that your point is to illustrate that technology can be applied to games around the world. I never argued that such a thing was not possible.

Perhaps you can address what technology you would apply and under what conditions. This would make for a more productive exchange.

I saw your position as being consistent with that of FIFA, that the game should be playable at the World Cup the same as it can anywhere else in the world.

My point is that that's a nonsense argument and I provided two separate analyses to illustrate why.

1. The game in theory can be played the same everywhere but practical limitations mean that it isn't. Everyone cannot afford to play on regulation pitches; with the limited technology FIFA has in place now (the earpieces etc.); Four officials etc.

Therefore if there are already limitations to the game being played the same on every level (notwithstanding the theoretical possibility) then the issue is moot.

You responded by arguing that the obstacles I point out are minor and peripheral. My response is that minor and peripheral as they may be they are real in making it practically impossible to do what FIFA insists must remain a theoretical possibility.

2. I argued in the alternative that the game needs not be played the same on every level, FIFA need to focus on what is within its control, which are the games sanctioned by it and its local Federations. If FIFA insists that the game should be playable on every level under the same rules then it runs into the practical limitations outlined in point #1. Let people play their pick-up soccer as they see fit and let FIFA worry about the bigger picture and not get lost in minutiae... which is what we arguing here right now.

My position hasn't changed... maybe you just lost track but my stance has been the same, it's a nonsense argument to further insist that goal line technology not be implemented. FIFA often has this head-in-the-clouds perspective that football is bigger than everything and that it should be a movement for world peace and all this bullshit. Who really cares if the game can be played the same everywhere? It can't, that's fact. Now the only remaining issue is what do we do to maintain the integrity of the sport so that people not lose faith in the product on the field? To reduce controversies and to make the outcomes of games fairer and more consistent? That should be the focus, not this hubristic notion about keeping the game playable by the same rules on every level.

If you were to study the laws of the game, you would realize that they allow for the minor differences as they now exist without compromising the rules of play. That you consider my opinion that one of the appealing things about football is the ability for any game to be played with the same rules nonsense is valid. Your long-winded argument that this potential is not reflected in reality is both obvious and irrelevant.

I did invite you to put forward any ideas on how you would implement your desired technological enhancements. I look forward to that discussion, rather than your continued pursuit of a narrow argument.

If you were to study the laws of the game, you would realize that they allow for the minor differences as they now exist without compromising the rules of play. That you consider my opinion that one of the appealing things about football is the ability for any game to be played with the same rules nonsense is valid. Your long-winded argument that this potential is not reflected in reality is both obvious and irrelevant.

I did invite you to put forward any ideas on how you would implement your desired technological enhancements. I look forward to that discussion, rather than your continued pursuit of a narrow argument.

One of the first things I said in response to you was that I wasn't addressing nothing to you specifically:

Quote

No offense, dis not directed at you but at the argument... repeated by FIFA defenders.... point number 1 is a shit argument.

but rather at FIFA's official position on the matter. Yet you coming with this talk about what I consider your argument to be... but whatever.

You act as though simple comprehension escaped you when I made my point the first time... I go on to elaborate so as to clear up any confusion and you respond with talk about my argument being "long-winded". Of course I could respond that your responses to my points have been just as "long-winded", but where would that leave us?

In your final comic act you come with this talk about how to implement my "desired technological enhancements"... despite the fact that I've already addressed that briefly. The local Federations can implement them for FIFA sanctioned games (using the chip in the ball and sensors around the goal mouth which when the ball crosses the goal line activates either a lamp or a camera. You don't need anything more elaborate than that for the time being.

I will just leave it at that and say let's agree to disagree because according to you it will only resort in more "long-winded" talk.

FIFA says the goal line technology is too expensive to implement. Alright, but for starters how about video replays only for incidents where a controversial disallowed goal or allowed goal (e.g. the Tevez goal) is involved? For FIFA to sit back and do nothing is ridiculous.

The funny thing is that ball over the line incident didn't even need video replays, so some of these officials just damn wotless which is another debate entirely!!!

On another but related note, the ball over the line incident kinda sidelining the Tevez offside issue. At half time yesterday, the "expert" at TV 6 seemed to suggest it was a good goal because of where the keeper was positioned. Sad thing is though that he didn't explain himself properly so I was left a little confused.

We continue to misunderstand the rule. The rule is very simple, a player is in an offside position if he is in his opponents' half of the pitch and is closer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and all but zero or one of his opponents at the time the ball is played. It has nothing to do with the keeper's position. There could be two defenders on the line and the keeper at half line and the player will not be offside.

Sadly in this case, Tevez was clearly offside. A game changer but the better team won.

We continue to misunderstand the rule. The rule is very simple, a player is in an offside position if he is in his opponents' half of the pitch and is closer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and all but zero or one of his opponents at the time the ball is played. It has nothing to do with the keeper's position. There could be two defenders on the line and the keeper at half line and the player will not be offside.

Sadly in this case, Tevez was clearly offside. A game changer but the better team won.

Blessing

Well boy as far as I could see, the man was offside. But to hear the "expert" on TV 6 tell he mentioned something about the keeper as if to suggest that the keeper's position may have kept him onside. Thing is the man didn't explain himself properly so I couldn't really tell if he was arguing for or against the offside....and he is the "expert"....

As for the better team winning, sssshhhh doh let them English fans hear yuh.....

FIFA says the goal line technology is too expensive to implement. Alright, but for starters how about video replays only for incidents where a controversial disallowed goal or allowed goal (e.g. the Tevez goal) is involved? For FIFA to sit back and do nothing is ridiculous.

The funny thing is that ball over the line incident didn't even need video replays, so some of these officials just damn wotless which is another debate entirely!!!

On another but related note, the ball over the line incident kinda sidelining the Tevez offside issue. At half time yesterday, the "expert" at TV 6 seemed to suggest it was a good goal because of where the keeper was positioned. Sad thing is though that he didn't explain himself properly so I was left a little confused.

So here goes (yet again), was Tevez offside or not?

I doh get TV6 but the general consensus based on the feedback I heard is that the TV6 commentator was torkin' a pile.

FIFA says the goal line technology is too expensive to implement. Alright, but for starters how about video replays only for incidents where a controversial disallowed goal or allowed goal (e.g. the Tevez goal) is involved? For FIFA to sit back and do nothing is ridiculous.

the only way this make sense to me is they saying the cost-benefit of goal-line tech makes it too expensive to implement. i could see this point - the cost to implement tech to account for one lampard "goal" is not worth it. it doh happen enough, particularly in relation to the numbers of offside calls, yellow/red cards or simulations. there's not enough benefit to add this technology uniformly. even for one tournament it not worth it.

video replay is another thing altogether, as you point out brownsugar. they have this in hockey and american football whose concept of a game clock is entirely different.

With the World Cup's Round of 16 under way, a rash of bungled calls — and the near-disastrous effect they had on the U.S. team — has Americans fuming. Disallowed goals and "mystery fouls" are now the norm. And referees have come to resemble Sphinxes — quiet, powerful and full of riddles.

Another example came in Sunday's Germany-England match, when officials missed noticing that Frank Lampard's shot had entered Germany's goal for a potential equalizer in the first half.

That's led many people to call for instant replay. But that's a silly idea, one that would drain the sport of the beautiful momentum that can make a 0-0 game fascinating. Still, I don't agree with FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who justifies the status quo by saying, "Society is not perfect, football is not perfect."

Aside from giving me something cool to say when I'm having a "discussion" with my girlfriend (just insert "Bill" for "football"), that statement is useless; it borders on the perverse. And it ignores a basic truth: It's time for the soccer-powers-that-be (or, the football-powers-that-etre) to change how they officiate games.

The problems go beyond Koman Coulibaly of Mali, who threw out American Maurice Edu's goal against Slovenia. Even before the final stage of the Cup, a referee missed handballs and other transgressions by France, in a match that gave them a spot and kept Ireland out. And in Brazil's first-round win over Ivory Coast, referee Stephane Lannoy was seen laughing with Luis Fabiano after missing his handball on a scoring play.

Are all these guys on the take — or maybe just evil? No — it's just that their flaws are magnified by a system that’s both broken and slanted. Here are some of the problems I see in World Cup soccer:

Four officials cover a space that’s larger than a football field. By contrast, the NFL uses seven officials to rule a field that's smaller by 20,000 square feet (77,625 sq. ft. for soccer vs. 57,600 for football).

And only one official — the referee — roams the field. Combine that with the perpetual motion mentioned above — or, to put it another way, 90 minutes of near-continuous chaos — and you realize that only a superhero could keep these games fair and under control.

Having one man follow the ball all over the pitch is like baseball's homeplate umpire chasing baserunners around the diamond, calling balls and strikes along the way. Because don't forget, the main responsibility of half of soccer's officiating crew is just to jog along the sideline and raise a checkered flag once in a while.

And that leads to the next point: Since soccer officials rarely collaborate on calls, the "wisdom of crowds" approach is out the window. Until recently, the "fourth official," who manages time and substitution issues, wasn't even expected to speak to the match referee.

My last point is related more to confidence and inclusion. Consider this: the U.S. doesn’t have a single referee in the Cup, but tiny Seychelles does – and they’re not even in the tournament. And Uruguay, for whatever reason, has six; Mexico has five.

I'm sure most of those guys are qualified — but the idea that America doesn't have a single official capable of refereeing — or, for the love of Pele, able to raise a checkered flag once in a while — is ludicrous. Being left out of the referee mix just feeds the paranoia of fans who think games are rigged.

Take all those points together, and you get a picture of a system that’s paternalistic, exclusionary and destined to fail — in short, it's not unlike several economies in Europe.

Maybe that's why U.S. coach Bob Bradley and his team took the setbacks in stride. They actually seemed surprised by the uproar over the bad calls, and the lack of explanation for them.

"FIFA operates differently. Soccer is a different game," Bradley said. "From our end, we get used to that. We all have friends and family who ask us the same questions that most of you ask us, and you end up saying, 'That's just how it is sometimes', and you move on and get ready for the next game."

When an organization embraces opportunities for unfairness and ineptitude with the zest FIFA has shown, you really can't be shocked by the result.

The World Cup would be better off if FIFA bagged the talk about humanity and imperfection and took a few pages from the folks running Wimbledon — a tournament that openly pursues perfection. When a tennis match starts on Centre Court, there are 11 officials watching the field of play — the chair umpire and 10 line judges.

If you're hoping to see that many referees in soccer, don't hold your breath. But before we see video replay and other technology being used in the World Cup, it'd be nice to see how well the officials could do if they're put in a position to succeed.

We know what the proper and sporting thing to say here is. Great game, Germany. You really stuck it to England in Sunday's World Cup match, you clearly had the fitter team, you dominated the pitch and deserved to win. Bravo, Deutschland. Fantastic hair, too.

Eh, yawn. This is no fun at all. Sorry, Deutschland. Let's talk about The Outrageously Blown Goal of the Century.

Did you see this madness? You have to have seen it by now! It's going to be replayed so often for the next four years they might as well print it on the £5 note. It's made England so mad that it has stopped insisting that its torpid and underachieving national team walk home from South Africa.

OK, kidding about that last part. England's still seething at its boys. Wayne Rooney probably wishes he played soccer for France.

But at least there's now a big video controversy to distract the angry mob. Down 2-1 in the first half of Sunday's round-of-16 match to dreaded rival Germany, England's Frank Lampard lifted a shot that hit the crossbar and appeared to land behind the German goalkeeper Manuel Neuer—and the white line.

The referees did not see it, however, and play pushed on mysteriously in Bloemfontein.

It was bizarre. We were all supposed to awkwardly ignore Mr. Lampard's equalizer, like a guest who'd arrived at a formal dinner party not wearing any pants. Germany went on to dominate the second half and win efficiently and decisively, 4-1.

And then it happened again, just hours later. In the first half of the contest between Argentina and Mexico, referees missed a blatant offside call against Argentina in allowing a Carlos Tévez header goal that made it 1-0. Argentina wound up winning, 3-1.

If you're mannerly, scared or a high-ranking FIFA official, you need to keep telling yourself that England and Mexico weren't going anywhere, anyway, that even if Mr. Lampard's goal had been allowed or Mr. Tévez's had been denied, the complexion of the game wouldn't have dramatically changed, and the outcome would have been identical.

Probably true—but totally lame. We've officially reached our limit with a balky game that continues to deny basic modernity. If Larry King can become pals with Ryan Seacrest, then any sport can embrace some instant replay.

We thought the replay debate would end for good after a baseball umpire's ghastly call stole a perfect game to Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga. But this World Cup is making backward baseball look like "Blade Runner."

Who is left to defend the lack of replay in modern sport? Basically, it's down to The Romantics, The Slippery Slopers and the Laughably Impatient. Here's a rundown of each holdout camp:

The Romantics: Ruminative counterintuitive-ists, often literary, inclined to dress in tweed and grow unkempt facial hair. Insist that controversy is part of sport, that arguments over officiating mistakes actually boost fan passion and fuel mystique. See cosmic significance in England's getting stiffed on a call Sunday, 44 years after Englishman Geoff Hurst's controversial goal against Germany in 1966. Enjoy writing long and pretentious comments on Internet message boards, or starting loud, boorish disputes with strangers in airport bars.

The Slippery Slopers: Luddite Cassandras. Worry that any introduction of replay technology will send us spiraling downward to the point where all games will eventually played by soulless robots, just like pro golf. Argue that as soon as you start reviewing goals, you'll start reviewing offsides, then yellow cards, and then Diego Maradona's suits, and pretty soon you're wrestling Mr. Maradona on the floor at a press conference, and he's actually still very strong, but at least he smells like flowers and chocolate-chip cookies.

The Laughably Impatient: Always in a hurry. Come on! They have stuff to do. They have absolutely no time for any instant replay, for any official who wants to pause the clock and make things right. They watch TV standing up, feed themselves nachos intravenously and never even use the restroom. They want this World Cup game to be over right now, so they can go and spend 90 minutes reading ESPN.com and another 30 scouring vuvuzelas on eBay.

What do all of these anti-replay-ites have in common? They are not Frank Lampard. They don't play for Mexico. They may work for FIFA. They are happy to stand in the way of accuracy because they're stubborn. It's not petty or whiny to say that mistakes are overshadowing this World Cup. Instead of golden goals, we're getting too many garbled ones.

Early CancellationWhen Landon Donovan scored in stoppage time against Algeria on Wednesday to send the U.S. into the knockout round, we thought it would finally do away with the "Soccer is Boring" critics in this country, and at least briefly quiet the skeptics who love to dismiss the home team as second-rate. But now, here the cranks come again, after the U.S. dropped a 2-1 extra-time match to Ghana on Saturday. This is silly. The U.S. didn't get bounced because it lacked skill or heart. The Americans got bounced because they dangerously kept treating their matches like the prosecutors on "Law & Order": They didn't pay attention to the first half of the show. And like "Law & Order," they got cancelled and will be missed.

FIFA President Sepp Blatter has apologized to England and Mexico for the refereeing errors that helped eliminate them from the World Cup and said FIFA will reopen the debate on introducing video technology.

Mr. Blatter said Tuesday that he said sorry to team officials, and that the delegations of both teams accepted his apology. "Naturally we deplore when you see the evidence of refereeing mistakes."

He said FIFA will "reopen the file" on video technology at a meeting of its rule-making panel in Wales next month, adding it would be "a nonsense" not to consider changes.

"Naturally we will take on board again the discussion about technology. Something has to be changed," Mr. Blatter said, while adding that the system could not be changed midway through the World Cup.

Mr. Blatter said he apologized to England and Mexico team officials at Sunday's matches.

"The English said 'thank you.' The Mexicans, they just go with the head," Mr. Blatter said, indicating that they nodded. "I understand that they are not happy. It was not a five-star game for refereeing."

England was denied a clear goal that would have leveled its match against Germany at 2-2, while Argentina took the lead against Mexico with a goal that was clearly offside.

Germany advanced 4-1 and Argentina won 3-1. The errors created a world-wide furor and put pressure on FIFA, which has long opposed allowing officials to use technology to assist in decision making.

FIFA also will update its referee training program.

Mr. Blatter said FIFA has set a deadline of October or November to create a new concept for improving match control at top tournaments.

He said the dossier is "on the presidential table."

He said FIFA spent $40 million on a program to prepare match officials world-wide before selecting 30 referees and 60 assistants to work in South Africa.

"They have their eyes, their perception of the game. So let's make that better and hope we are going forward," Mr. Blatter said.

Speaking to reporters at a briefing, Mr. Blatter said the controversy had not spoiled his enjoyment of the tournament.

"Generally I am happy with what I have seen," said Mr. Blatter, who has attended 20 of the first 54 matches since the World Cup opened June 11.

He singled out Ghana's 2-1 extra-time victory over the United States in the second round on Saturday as his most memorable match so far

Sepp, ah eh think referee training was the problem Sunday. Stevie Wonder coulda see England's goal was good and Tevez was offside. Maybe you needed to equip these officials with binoculars!!....steups!!

giggsy11

I wouldn't go for instant replay but post an extra linesperson behind each goal. It keeps the human element while providing the officals with an extra set of eyes.

I also think the problem has been that to many officials and linespersons have been in place to make the calls but not making the calls. They need tuh put them thru some CIA training and mentally toughen them up if they lack the balls to make the right call!